• No results found

University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus (UNEC)

7 7,762 2016/2017

Total 12 9,984

Table 1: Population of Study

Source1: Registra’s Office, Godfrey Okoye University Source2: Department of statistics, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus Sample size

The sample size comprises male and female students of Godfrey Okoye University and the university of Nigeria, Enugu campus. From the total population of 9,984 students, a total of 200 students were selected to serve as the respondents.

One hundred (100) students were selected from Godfrey Okoye University and also, One hundred (100) students were selected from the University of Nigeria, Enugu campus. The sample size is considered large enough to permit the statistical computation that is involved in the analysis. Also, the size can be effectively taken care of by the researcher given the resources available to him.

Sampling Technique

The cluster sampling technique has been used to select the sample for this study.

First, the researcher zones the area. Secondly, the units from the zones has to be selected randomly from each zone. Thirdly, the individual elements has to be sampled and selected.

Godfrey Okoye university consists of five (5) faculties. These includes faculty of natural and applied sciences, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, Faculty of Education, Faculty of Arts, and Faculty of Law.

The university of Nigeria, Enugu campus consists of seven (7) faculties. These includes Faculty of Business Administration, Faculty of Environmental studies, Faculty of Health science, Faculty of Law, Faculty of medical sciences, Faculty of Dentistry and Faculty of Basic Medical services.

The cumulative of twelve (12) faculties of both Godfrey Okoye University and the university of Nigeria, Enugu campus served as clusters on which the

sampling was based. From these clusters, the simple random sampling was applied to select three (3) faculties from UNEC and two (2) faculties from GOU for the distribution of the sample.

From the five(5) faculties, another simple random sampling was applied to select two (2) department each, making a total of ten(10) departments that was chosen for this study. The sample size was made up of only students from second year to final year. This was to ensure that only those who have fair knowledge and experience of the school by virtue of the number of years spent are part of the sample.

Twenty(20) students were sampled from each of the selected departments to serve as respondents. This bring the respondents to a total of two hundred (200).

Method of data collection

The questionnaire was the primary instrument for data collection in this study. A well structured and researcher developed questionnaire titled “the use of ICT in crime detection and school security in Nigeria universities: a case study of

Godfrey Okoye university and the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus” which consisted 30 questionnaire items based on the four research questions and the purpose of the study was designed for data collection. The questionnaire method was adopted because the researcher deems it of utmost assistance in obtaining the needed data from the respondents. It also gave the respondents the freewill to express their views, opinion and equally assures their anonymity.

The instrument was divided into two sections. Section (A) contains information about the respondent, Section (B) contains information on the substantive part of the study. The questionnaire was self administered to ensure maximum return.

Validation of the instrument

In this research, the questionnaire was designed and given to two (2) experts in the field of computer science education for validation. The corrected copy was taken to the supervisor for approval.

Reliability of the instrument

The test-retest method was used in ensuring the reliability of the instrument.

The instrument was trial-tested in one of the sample universities with twenty (20) students, and their responses collected. After about two weeks of the administration, the same test items was re-administered to the same group of respondents. However, the result was consistent with a correlation of 0.75. This, the researcher regarded as high enough to be used for the study.

Method of data analysis

The analysis of data from the questionnaire was quantitative in nature.

Descriptive statistical method of analysis was employed in this analysis.

The research questions were answered and summarized using the mean table, while each questionnaire item was analyzed using simple percentage, which sought the frequency, percent, cumulative percent, and cumulative frequency of each item. The mean is express as:

´x=

FX/F

´x=mean score value

∑= summation

X= score (Nominal values assigned to the response mode) F= frequency of the response of items in the column

However, nominal values will be assigned to differentiate scaling items as follows:

For research question 1, 2, and 4, the scaling are:

Strongly Agree (SA) = 4 Agree (A) = 3

Disagree (D) = 2

Strongly Disagree (SD) = 1

For research question 3, the scaling are:

Very great extent (VGE) = 4 Great extent (GE) = 3

Low extent (LE) = 2 No extent (NE) = 1 Hence,

Mean (X) = 4+3+2+1/4 =10/4 = 2.50 Decision Rule

Responses on each research question were considered high and accepted when the mean was 2.50 and above, and low and rejected when the mean was less than 2.50

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

This chapter shows the presentation and analysis of the data collected for the study.

The instrument for data collection was the questionnaire. The questionnaire was prepared for the students of Godfrey Okoye University and the University of

Nigeria, Enugu Campus which are the areas of the study. The questionnaire was divided into two parts namely; the demographic characteristics, and the substantive issue of the research.

The data were analyzed using mean score computation and frequency table (including frequency, percent, cumulative frequency and cumulative percent).

The result was presented and finally, the implication of the result of the research question was discussed to prove or refute the research question and also to achieve some objective of the study. Data collected are presented in table showing various results

Analysis of data

First of all, 200 copies of the questions were distributed randomly among the selected students of Godfrey Okoye University and the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus. After the distribution, 192 copies of the questionnaires were retrieved. Eleven (11) of the retrieved questionnaire were partially answered and were not included in the analysis. The total number of questionnaires for this analysis is therefore 181. Descriptive statistics was used to summarize the demographic information and the research question in this study.

Section A: Demographic characteristics

This part covers the demographic characteristics of the 181 students who served as respondents in the study.

Sex of Respondents

Sex Frequency Percentage(%)

Male 95 52.49

Female 86 47.51

Total 181 100

Table 2: Distribution of the Respondents by Sex

Table 2 above shows that of a total of 181 students, 95(52.49%) are male, while 86(47.51%) are female. This shows that majority of the respondents are male.

Section (B): Substantive issue of the research

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS USING MEAN TABLE

Table 3: Research Question 1 : What are the ICT tools that are available for crime detection in Godfrey Okoye University, and the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus?

S/N Item: What ICT facilities are available in your school for crime detection and school security?

SA (4 x f)

A (3 x f)

D (2x f)

SD (1 x f)

Total (N)

Mean

fx f

Decision

1 Mobile phones 62 68 19 29 178 2.92 Accepted

2 Video camera(CCTV) 74 61 26 19 180 3.06 Accepted

3 Walkie talkie 15 46 71 47 179 2.16 Rejected

4 Biometric Finger print identity system

11 51 61 56 179 2.09 Rejected

5 Interactive web portal 39 27 52 58 176 2.27 Rejected

6 Faraday cage 8 23 68 81 180 1.77 Rejected

7 Electronic detectors 15 33 70 61 179 2.01 Rejected

8 Phone signal jammer 9 25 61 83 178 1.78 Rejected

9 Metal detector 9 60 46 59 174 2.11 Rejected

10 Car tracker 11 38 48 79 176 1.89 Rejected

Table 4: Research Question 2: What is the level of student awareness and usage of available ICT tools for school safety in Godfrey Okoye University, and the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus?

S/N

Item: What is the level of student awareness and usage of available ICT facilities in your School?

SA (4 x f)

A (3 x f)

D (2x f)

SD (1 x f)

Total (N)

Mean

fx f

Decision

1 Are students aware of the available ICT facilities for crime detection?

48 68 35 28 179 2.76 Accepted

2 Are students exposed to the use available ICT tool for crime detection?

28 39 70 41 178 2.30 Rejected

3 Do students regularly use available ICT tools?

54 51 48 26 179 2.74 Accepted

4 Are ICT facilities employed in hostels for crime detection?

22 31 65 59 177 2.09 Rejected

5 Are ICT facilities employed in lecture rooms for crime detection?

18 42 49 70 179 2.04 Rejected

Table 5: Research Question 3: How efficient and effective are present ICT facilities employed in crime detection and school security in Godfrey Okoye University, and the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus?

S/N Item: To what extent are present ICT facilities employed in your school for crime detection effective and adequate?

VGE (4 x f)

GE (3 X f)

LE (2 x f)

VLE (1 x f)

Total (N)

Mean

fx f

Decision

1 To what extent are present ICT facilities employed in hostels and classrooms for crime detection functional?

22 30 57 70 179 2.02 Rejected

2 To what extent are present ICT facilities employed in the school sufficient in detecting crimes of theft?

16 47 59 55 177 2.14 Rejected

3 To what extent are present ICT facilities employed in exam halls effective in detecting exam malpractices?

39 43 52 45 179 2.41 Rejected

4 To what extent do present ICT facilities employed in your campus reduce the crime of cultism and use of weapons?

23 47 51 58 179 2.20 Rejected

5 To what extent do ICT tools available in your school reduce the rate of sexual violence in the school?

22 45 51 62 180 2.15 Rejected

6 To what extent do ICT tools available in your campus reduce the rate of car and phone snatching ?

24 40 43 71 178 2.10 Rejected

7 To what extent do the presence of ICT facilities make you feel safe in school

25 36 55 65 181 2.12 Rejected

Table 6: Research Question 4: What ways can modern ICT facilities be used to detect/curb on-campus crimes and enhance school security in Godfrey Okoye University, and the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus?

S/N Item What ways can ICT facilities be better used to detect/curb crimes and enhance school security?

SA (4 x f)

A (3 x f)

D (2 x f)

SD (1 x f)

Total (N)

Mean

fx f

Decision

1 The use of metal detectors should be employed in the school to check the use of weapons

115 43 9 11 178 3.47 Accepted

2 Mobile phones should be encouraged in schools for quick reporting of crimes

111 59 7 2 179 3.56 Accepted

3 Network jammers should be used in exam halls to avoid malpractice

87 54 18 20 179 3.16 Accepted

4 Functional CCTV should be installed in strategic scenes to detect criminals

113 48 12 8 181 3.47 Accepted

5 Should an interactive web portal or e-mail address be made available for students to report crimes?

96 57 19 7 179 3.35 Accepted

6 Students should be registered to use finger prints to sign-in and out of exam halls

86 63 14 15 178 3.24 Accepted

7 Government should partner with schools to provide necessary ICT

125 38 6 11 180 3.54 Accepted

facilities

Table 7: Are mobile phones available in your school for crime detection and school security?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 62 34.8 62 34.8

Agree 68 38.2 130 73.0

Disagree 19 10.7 149 83.7

Strongly disagree

29 16.3 178 100.0

Total 178 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

The table of statistical values above shows that 62(34.8%) of the respondents strongly agree, 68(38.2%) agree, 19(10.7%) disagree, and 29(16.3%) strongly disagree. From the result, majority of the respondents 130(73%) agree and strongly agree while minority 48(27%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that mobile phones are available in schools for crime detection and school security.

Table 8: Are video cameras (CCTV) available in your school for crime detection and school security?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Cumulative

Frequency percent

Strongly Agree 74 41.1 74 41.1

Agree 61 33.9 135 75

Disagree 26 14.4 161 89.4

Strongly disagree

19 10.6 180 100.0

Total 180 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

The table above reveals that 74(41.1%) of the respondents strongly agree,

61(33.9%) agree, 26(14.4%) disagree, and 19(10.6%) strongly disagree. From the result, majority of the respondents 135(75%) agree and strongly agree while

minority 45(25%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that video camera (CCTV) are available in schools for crime detection and school security.

Table 9: Are walkie talkie available in your school for crime detection and school security?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 15 8.4 15 8.4

Agree 46 25.7 61 34.1

Disagree 71 39.6 132 73.7

Strongly disagree

47 26.3 179 100.0

Total 179 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

The table of statistical values above shows that 15(8.4%) of the respondents strongly agree, 46(25.7%) agree, 71(39.6%) disagree, and 47(26.3%) strongly disagree. From the result, minority of the respondents 61(34.1%) agree and strongly agree while majority 118(65.9%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that walkie talkie are not available in schools for crime detection and school security.

Table 10: Are biometric finger print identity system available in your school for crime detection and school security?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 11 6.1 11 6.1

Agree 51 28.5 62 34.6

Disagree 61 34.1 123 68.7

Strongly disagree

56 31.3 179 100.0

Total 179 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

The table of values above shows that 11(6.1 %) of the respondents strongly agree, 51(28.5%) agree, 61(34.1%) disagree, and 56(31.3%) strongly disagree. From the result, minority of the respondents 62(34.6%) agree and strongly agree while majority 117(65.4%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that

Biometric finger print identity system are not available in schools for crime detection and school security.

Table 11: Are Interactive web portal(s) available in your school for crime detection and school security?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 39 22.2 39 22.2

Agree 27 15.3 66 37.5

Disagree 52 29.5 118 67.0

Strongly disagree

58 33.0 176 100.0

Total 176 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

From the table above, it is seen that 39(22.2%) of the respondents strongly agree, 27(15.3%) agree, 52(29.5%) disagree, and 58(33.0%) strongly disagree. From the result, minority of the respondents 66(37.5%) agree and strongly agree while majority 110(62.5%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that interactive web portal(s) are not available in schools for crime detection and school security.

Table 12: Are Faraday cage available in your school for crime detection and school security?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Cumulative

Frequency percent

Strongly Agree 8 4.4 8 4.4

Agree 23 12.8 31 17.2

Disagree 68 37.8 99 55.0

Strongly disagree

81 45 180 100

Total 180 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

Table 12 above shows that 8(4.4%) of the respondents strongly agree, 23(12.8%) agree, 68(37.8%) disagree, and 81(45%) strongly disagree. From the result,

minority of the respondents 31(17.2%) agree and strongly agree while majority 149(82.8%) disagree and strongly disagree. Therefore, we conclude that Faraday cage are not available in schools for crime detection and school security.

Table 13: Are electronic detectors available in your school for crime detection and school security?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 15 8.4 15 8.4

Agree 33 18.4 48 26.8

Disagree 70 39.1 118 65.9

Strongly disagree

61 34.1 179 100.0

Total 179 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

The statistical table above shows that 15(8.4%) of the respondents strongly agree, 33(18.4%) agree, 70(39.1%) disagree, and 61(34.1%) strongly disagree. From the result, minority of the respondents 48(26.8%) agree and strongly agree while majority 131(83.2%) disagree and strongly disagree. We therefore conclude that electronic detectors are not available in schools for crime detection and school security.

Table 14: Are phone signal jammers available in your school for crime detection and school security?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 9 5.1 9 5.1

Agree 25 14.0 34 19.1

Disagree 61 34.3 95 53.4

Strongly disagree

83 46.6 178 100.0

Total 178 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

Table 14 above shows that 9(5.1%) of the respondents strongly agree, 25(14.0%) agree, 61(34.3%) disagree, and 83(46.6%) strongly disagree. From the result, minority of the respondents 34(19.1%) agree and strongly agree while majority 144(80.9%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that phone signal jammers are not available in schools for crime detection and school security.

Table 15: Are metal detectors available in your school for crime detection and school security?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 9 5.2 9 5.2

Agree 60 34.5 69 39.7

Disagree 46 26.4 115 66.1

Strongly disagree

59 33.9 174 100.0

Total 174 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

The above table shows that 9(5.2%) of the respondents strongly agree, 60(34.5%) agree, 46(26.4%) disagree, and 59(33.9 %) strongly disagree. From the result, minority of the respondents 69(39.7%) agree and strongly agree while majority 105(60.3%) disagree and strongly disagree. We therefore conclude that metal detectors are not available in schools for crime detection and school security.

Table 16: Are car trackers available in your school for crime detection and school security?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 11 6.3 11 6.3

Agree 38 21.6 49 27.9

Disagree 48 27.3 97 55.2

Strongly 79 44.8 176 100.0

disagree

Total 176 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

Table 16 above reveals that 11(6.3%) of the respondents strongly agree,

38(21.6%) agree, 48(27.3%) disagree, and 79(44.8%) strongly disagree. From the result, minority of the respondents 49(27.9%) agree and strongly agree while majority 125(72.1%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that car tracker(s) are not available in schools for crime detection and school security.

Table 17: Are students aware of the available ICT facilities for crime detection?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 48 26.8 48 26.8

Agree 68 38.0 116 64.8

Disagree 35 19.6 151 84.4

Strongly disagree

28 15.6 179 100.0

Total 179 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

Table 17 shows that 48(26.8%) of the respondents strongly agree, 68(38.0%) agree, 35(19.6%) disagree, and 28(15.6%) strongly disagree. From the result, majority of the respondents 116(64.8%) agree and strongly agree while minority 63(35.2%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that students are aware of available ICT facilities for crime detection.

Table 18: Are students exposed to the use of available ICT tools for crime detection?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 28 15.7 28 15.7

Agree 39 22.0 67 37.7

Disagree 70 39.3 137 77.0

Strongly disagree

41 23.0 178 100.0

Total 178 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

From table 18, 28(15.7%) of the respondents strongly agree, 39(22.0%) agree, 70(39.3%) disagree, and 41(23.0%) strongly disagree. From the result, minority of the respondents 67(37.7%) agree and strongly agree while majority 111(62.3%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that students are not exposed to the use of available ICT tools for crime detection

Table 19: Do students regularly make use of available ICT tools?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 54 30.2 54 30.2

Agree 51 28.5 105 58.7

Disagree 48 26.8 153 85.5

Strongly disagree

26 14.5 179 100.0

Total 179 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

From Table 19 above, it is shown that 54(30.2%) of the respondents strongly agree, 51(28.5%) agree, 48(26.8%) disagree, and 26(26.8%) strongly disagree.

From the result, majority of the respondents 105(58.7%) agree and strongly agree while minority 74(41.3%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that students regularly make use of available ICT tools.

Table 20: Are ICT facilities employed in the hostels for crime detection?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 22 12.5 22 12.5

Agree 31 17.5 53 30.0

Disagree 65 36.7 118 66.7

Strongly disagree

59 33.3 177 100.0

Total 177 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

Table 20 above shows that 22(12.5%) of the respondents strongly agree,

31(17.5%) agree, 65(36.7%) disagree, and 59(33.3%) strongly disagree. From the result, minority of the respondents 53(30.0%) agree and strongly agree while majority 124(70.0%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that ICT facilities are not employed in hostels for crime detection.

Table 21: Are ICT facilities employed in the lecture halls for crime detection?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 18 10.1 18 10.1

Agree 42 23.5 60 33.6

Disagree 49 27.4 109 61.0

Strongly disagree

70 39.0 179 100.0

Total 179 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

The table of statistical values above shows that 18(10.1%) of the respondents strongly agree, 42(23.5%) agree, 49(27.4%) disagree, and 70(39.0%) strongly disagree. From the result, minority of the respondents 60(33.6%) agree and

strongly agree while majority 119(66.4.0%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that ICT facilities are not employed in lecture rooms for crime

detection.

Table 22: To what extent are present ICT facilities employed in hostels and lecture halls for crime detection functional?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulativ

e

Frequency

Cumulative percent

Very Great Extent 22 12.3 22 12.3

Great Extent 30 16.8 52 29.1

Little Extent 57 31.8 109 60.9

Very Little Extent 70 39.1 179 100.0

Total 179 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

Table 22 above shows that 22(12.3%) of the respondents affirmed very great extent, 30(16.8%) affirmed great extent, 57(31.8%) affirmed little extent, while 70(39.1%) affirmed very little extent. From the result, minority of the respondents 52(29.1%) affirmed very great extent and great extent while majority 127(70.1%) affirmed little extent and very little extent. Hence, we firmly conclude, to a very little extent the present ICT facilities employed in hostels and lecture rooms for crime detection are functional.

Table 23: To what extent are present ICT facilities employed in yours school sufficient for detecting the crime of theft?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulativ

e

Frequency

Cumulative percent

Very Great Extent 16 9.0 16 9.0

Great Extent 47 26.6 63 35.6

Little Extent 59 33.3 122 68.9

Very Little Extent 55 31.1 177 100.0

Total 177 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

From Table 23, 16(9.0%) of the respondents affirmed very great extent, 47(26.6%) affirmed great extent, 59(33.3%) affirmed little extent, while 55(31.1%) affirmed

very little extent. From the result, minority of the respondents 63(35.6%) affirmed very great extent and great extent while majority 114(64.4%) affirmed little extent and very little extent. Hence, we firmly conclude, to a little extent the present ICT facilities employed in schools are sufficient for detecting the crime of theft.

Table 24: To what extent are present ICT facilities employed in exam halls effective in detecting exam malpractices?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulativ

e

Frequency

Cumulative percent

Very Great Extent 39 21.8 39 21.8

Great Extent 43 24.0 82 45.8

Little Extent 52 29.1 134 74.9

Very Little Extent 45 25.1 179 100.0

Total 179 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

Table 24 above reveals that, 39(21.8%) of the respondents affirmed very great extent, 43(24.0%) affirmed great extent, 52(29.1%) affirmed little extent, while 45(25.1%) affirmed very little extent. From the result, minority of the respondents 82(45.8%) affirmed very great extent and great extent while majority 97(54.2%) affirmed little extent and very little extent. Hence, we firmly conclude, to a little

extent the present ICT facilities employed in exam halls are effective in detecting exam malpractices.

Table 25: To what extent do the present ICT facilities employed in yours school reduce the crime of cultism and use of weapons?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulativ

e

Frequency

Cumulative percent

Very Great Extent 23 12.8 23 12.8

Great Extent 47 26.3 70 39.1

Little Extent 51 28.5 121 67.6

Very Little Extent 58 33.4 179 100

Total 179 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

Table 25 shows that 23(12.8%) of the respondents affirmed very great extent, 47(26.3%) affirmed great extent, 51(28.5%) affirmed little extent, while

58(32.4%) affirmed very little extent. From the result, minority of the respondents 70(39.1%) affirmed very great extent and great extent while majority 109(60.9%) affirmed little extent and very little extent. Hence, we firmly conclude, to a very little extent the present ICT facilities employed in schools reduce the crime of cultism and use of weapons.

Table 26: To what extent do the present ICT facilities employed in yours school reduce the rate of sexual violence in the school?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulativ e

Frequency

Cumulative percent

Very Great Extent 22 12.2 22 12.2

Great Extent 45 25.0 67 37.2

Little Extent 51 28.3 118 65.5

Very Little Extent 62 34.5 180 100.0

Total 180 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

From the table above, 22(12.2%) of the respondents affirmed very great extent, 45(25.0%) affirmed great extent, 51(28.3%) affirmed little extent, while

62(34.5%) affirmed very little extent. From the result, minority of the respondents 67(37.2%) affirmed very great extent and great extent while majority 113(62.8%) affirmed little extent and very little extent. Hence, we firmly conclude, to a very little extent the present ICT facilities employed in schools are sufficient for detecting the crime of theft.

Table 27: To what extent do the present ICT facilities employed in yours school reduce the rate of car/phone snatching ?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulativ

e

Frequency

Cumulative percent

Very Great Extent 24 13.5 24 13.5

Great Extent 40 22.5 64 36.0

Little Extent 43 24.2 107 60.2

Very Little Extent 71 39.8 178 100.0

Total 178 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

From the table above, 23(13.5%) of the respondents affirmed very great extent, 40(22.5%) affirmed great extent, 43(24.2%) affirmed little extent, while

71(39.8%) affirmed very little extent. From the above result, minority of the respondents 64(36.0%) affirmed very great extent and great extent while majority 114(64.0%) affirmed little extent and very little extent. Hence, we firmly

conclude, to a very little extent the present ICT facilities employed in schools reduce car/phone snatching.

Table 28: To what extent do the presence of ICT facilities make you feel safe in school?

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulativ

e

Frequency

Cumulative percent

Very Great Extent 25 13.8 25 13.8

Great Extent 36 19.9 61 33.7

Little Extent 55 30.4 116 64.1

Very Little Extent 65 35.9 181 100.0

Total 181 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

From the table above, 25(13.8%) of the respondents affirmed very great extent, 36(19.9%) affirmed great extent, 55(30.4%) affirmed little extent, while

65(35.9%) affirmed very little extent. From the result, minority of the respondents 61(33.7%) affirmed very great extent and great extent while majority 120(66.3%) affirmed little extent and very little extent. Hence, we firmly conclude, to a very little extent the presence of ICT facilities makes students feel safe in schools.

Table 29: The use of metal detectors should be employed in the school to check the use of weapons

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 115 64.6 115 64.6

Agree 43 24.2 158 88.8

Disagree 9 5.1 167 93.9

Strongly disagree

11 6.1 178 100.0

Total 178 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

The table of values above shows that 115(64.6%) of the respondents strongly agree, 43(24.2%) agree, 9(5.1%) disagree, and 11(6.1%) strongly disagree. From the result, majority of the respondents 158(88.8%) agree and strongly agree while minority 20(11.2%) disagree and strongly disagree. Hence, we conclude that the use of metal detectors should be employed in the school to check the use of weapons.

Table 30: Mobile phones should be encouraged in schools for quick reporting of crimes

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 111 62.0 111 62.0

Agree 59 33.0 170 95.0

Disagree 7 3.9 177 98.9

Strongly disagree

2 1.1 179 100.0

Total 178 100.0

Source: Field survey 2018

Table 30 above shows that 111(62.0%) of the respondents strongly agree, 59(33.0%) agree, 7(3.9%) disagree, while only 2(1.1%) strongly disagree. The result reveals that majority of the respondents 170(95.0%) agree and strongly agree while minority 9(5%) disagree and strongly disagree. We therefore conclude strongly that mobile phones should be encouraged in schools for quick reporting of crimes

Table 31: Network jammers should be used in exam halls to avoid malpractice

Scale Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Cumulative percent

Strongly Agree 87 48.6 87 48.6

Agree 54 30.2 141 78.8

Disagree 18 10.0 159 88.8

Strongly 20 11.2 179 100.0